Hi,
since commit 9f4fead3c823ac5470bd7619d69d055c75c36e1f,
"In whitespace canonicalization, find a suitable make automatically",
I get the following error when running "sh make.sh":
tools-for-build/whitespacely-canonical-filenames: 26: Syntax error: ";" unexpected
This is on Ubuntu Linux, the shell is dash 0.5.5.1-7.2ubuntu1.
A possible fix is to change the semicolon at the end of line 26 to a
colon:
Old:
if [ -n "$GNUFIND" ]; then ;
New:
if [ -n "$GNUFIND" ]; then :
What is disconcerting for me here is that make.sh happily works on to
build SBCL. Shouldn't it check whether subcommands succeed and terminate
immediately if not? I only accidentally noticed the problem with
whitespacely-canonical-filenames when looking at the start of the build
output for other reasons.
Greetings,
Lutz

Thread view

Hi,
since commit 9f4fead3c823ac5470bd7619d69d055c75c36e1f,
"In whitespace canonicalization, find a suitable make automatically",
I get the following error when running "sh make.sh":
tools-for-build/whitespacely-canonical-filenames: 26: Syntax error: ";" unexpected
This is on Ubuntu Linux, the shell is dash 0.5.5.1-7.2ubuntu1.
A possible fix is to change the semicolon at the end of line 26 to a
colon:
Old:
if [ -n "$GNUFIND" ]; then ;
New:
if [ -n "$GNUFIND" ]; then :
What is disconcerting for me here is that make.sh happily works on to
build SBCL. Shouldn't it check whether subcommands succeed and terminate
immediately if not? I only accidentally noticed the problem with
whitespacely-canonical-filenames when looking at the start of the build
output for other reasons.
Greetings,
Lutz

Hi,
thank you for the bug report. I hope I have managed to push it without
typos this time...
Quoting Lutz Euler (lutz.euler@...):
> What is disconcerting for me here is that make.sh happily works on to
> build SBCL. Shouldn't it check whether subcommands succeed and terminate
> immediately if not? I only accidentally noticed the problem with
> whitespacely-canonical-filenames when looking at the start of the build
> output for other reasons.
Well, whitespacely-canonical-filenames lacks set -e. However, that alone
wouldn't help, because canonicalize-whitespace uses it in a pipe.
The easy way to check an exit code of a command in a pipeline is:
${PIPESTATUS[*]}
but that is bash-specific IIUC.
Would it be OK to use #!/bin/bash in our scripts? My Solaris happens to
have /bin/bash, but that's probably a very new feature.
d.

On 10 June 2012 01:23, David Lichteblau <david@...> wrote:
> Would it be OK to use #!/bin/bash in our scripts? My Solaris happens to
> have /bin/bash, but that's probably a very new feature.
I think having a build-dependency on bash would not be terribly
onerous -- so I'd be fine with it.
...but I realize I'm not among those negatively affected, so...
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus

Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus@...> writes:
> On 10 June 2012 01:23, David Lichteblau <david@...> wrote:
>
>> Would it be OK to use #!/bin/bash in our scripts? My Solaris happens to
>> have /bin/bash, but that's probably a very new feature.
>
> I think having a build-dependency on bash would not be terribly
> onerous -- so I'd be fine with it.
>
> ...but I realize I'm not among those negatively affected, so...
No, bash is very heavy dependency.
--
HE CE3OH...

On 12 June 2012 12:46, Aleksej Saushev <asau@...> wrote:
>> I think having a build-dependency on bash would not be terribly
>> onerous -- so I'd be fine with it.
>>
>> ...but I realize I'm not among those negatively affected, so...
>
> No, bash is very heavy dependency.
Heaviness is relative. It's available everywhere we support building,
and I would guess that 98% of SBCL build hosts already have it
installed.
In what sort of situations do you think bash as a /build time/
dependency is too onerous for SBCL? I'm willing to believe such a
situation can exist, but I really can't imagine one off the top of my
head.
"I don't want to install bash." doesn't qualify.
"I need to build SBCL on box X because of Y, and I /cannot/ install
bash there for reason Z." does. I'm just having trouble coming up with
a reason why someone needs to be able to build SBCL on a box where
they cannot have bash.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus

Community

Help

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

I agree to receive quotes, newsletters and other information from sourceforge.net and its partners regarding IT services and products. I understand that I can withdraw my consent at any time. Please refer to our Privacy Policy or Contact Us for more details